Virtualization - Nov 2022 - [PATCH v4] virtio/vsock: replace virtio_vsock_pkt with sk_buff

On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 06:13:49PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov
wrote:
>Hello Stefano
>
>On 24.11.2022 18:00, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> This is a net-next material, please remember to use net-next tag:
>>
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.0/process/maintainer-netdev.html#netdev-faq
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:07:49PM -0800, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
>>> This commit changes virtio/vsock to use sk_buff instead of
>>> virtio_vsock_pkt. Beyond better conforming to other net code, using
>>> sk_buff allows vsock to use sk_buff-dependent features in the
future
>>> (such as sockmap) and improves throughput.
>>>
>>> This patch introduces the following performance changes:
>>>
>>> Tool/Config: uperf w/ 64 threads, SOCK_STREAM
>>> Test Runs: 5, mean of results
>>> Before: commit 95ec6bce2a0b ("Merge branch
'net-ipa-more-endpoints'")
>>>
>>> Test: 64KB, g2h
>>> Before: 21.63 Gb/s
>>> After: 25.59 Gb/s (+18%)
>>>
>>> Test: 16B, g2h
>>> Before: 11.86 Mb/s
>>> After: 17.41 Mb/s (+46%)
>>>
>>> Test: 64KB, h2g
>>> Before: 2.15 Gb/s
>>> After: 3.6 Gb/s (+67%)
>>>
>>> Test: 16B, h2g
>>> Before: 14.38 Mb/s
>>> After: 18.43 Mb/s (+28%)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman at
bytedance.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> The patch LGTM. I run several tests (iperf3, vsock_test,
>> vsock_diag_test, vhost-user-vsock, tcpdump) and IMO we are okay.
>>
>> I found the following problems that I would like to report:
>>
>> - vhost-user-vsock [1] is failing, but it is not an issue of this
patch,
>> ? but a spec violation in the rust-vmm/vm-virtio/virtio-vsock crate as
I
>> ? reported here [2]. We will fix it there, this patch is fine, indeed
>> ? trying a guest with the new layout (1 descriptor for both header and
>> ? data) with vhost-vsock in Linux 6.0, everything works perfectly.
>>
>> - the new "SOCK_SEQPACKET msg bounds" [3] reworked by Arseniy
fails
>> ? intermittently with this patch.
>>
>> ? Using the tests currently in the kernel tree everything is fine, so
>> ? I don't understand if it's a problem in the new test or in
this
>> ? patch. I've looked at the code again and don't seem to see
any
>> ? criticisms.
>>
>> ? @Arseniy @Bobby can you take a look?
>Seems i've found this problem here:
>
>https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/11/24/708
>
>Being fixed - all tests passes
Good catch!

Thanks,
Stefano